Originally posted by worktheweb:
Banning cameras takes away from the value of the show for the 1,000 some odd people who pay the artist's salary buying that ticket so that 1-5 people in the band can feel warm and fuzzy. Doesn't add up to me.
I think it's a pretty small niche of concert-goers who are all bent out of shape about the camera issue. Even when shows do allow pictures, there seem to be maybe 50 folks with camera, out of a thousand people in the club? And I'd venture to say a good portion of those with cameras wouldn't be proactively pissed if they couldn't have cameras.
It's not a public space, it's a private club. They can do anything they want, and keeping artists happy is a pretty good business strategy.
I've never understood the desire to watch a whole show through a viewfinder rather than experience the show (which is how some real photo-bugs watch the show, not everyone, but I've certainly seen folks watching the whole show through the viewfinder hoping for the perfect photo op). Plus I rarely find concert photos that compelling, and they all look the same.
AND, when folks around me are all hell bent on getting photos, holding up cameras, having them flash -- it can be a pain in my ass too.
So having cameras *banned* may actually add to myt enjoyment of the show, rather than the converse which you argue.
-edit-
Note, above I'm talking about the crazed, avid photo takers, not everyone who brings a camera to a show....